DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgments
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on April 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory provisional double patenting, Applicant request that the rejection is held in abeyance until other issues are resolved. The rejection is hereby maintained.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that the recitation of claims 1, 8 and 15 "in response to detecting that a timer associated with the determining reaches a time threshold, performing at least one of the one or more actions; or in response to detecting a user interaction with the component graphic user interface before the timer reaches the time threshold, performing at least one of the one or more actions selected via the user interaction," are not taught by the cited prior art of Long. Applicant further argues, on page 13, that an alarm including no actions that are impacted by a timer cannot satisfy the quoted claim recitations.
The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments were fully considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection, as the newly cited prior art of Donnelly teaches the quoted claimed features argued by Applicant. In addition, the challenge presented to the operator in Donnelly is timed and further actions are impacted by the timer.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/134964.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 1, 8 and 15 recite similar features to claims 1, 8 and 15 of the copending Application No. 18/134964. claims 1, 8 and 15 of the copending Application No. 18/134964 recite additional limitations:
(i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL) with the smart contract;
(ii) communicating with a taxi or ride-share service entity with the smart contract;
(iii) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity with the smart contract; or
(iv) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity with the smart contract;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1, 8, and 15 of the copending Application No. 18/134964 by removing the above additional limitations. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 9 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/134964.
The claims at issue are identical and not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 2, 9 and 16 recite same features to claims 2, 9 and 16 of the copending Application No. 18/134964.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/134964.
The claims at issue are identical and not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 4 and 14 recite same features to claims 4 and 11 of the copending Application No. 18/134964.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/134964, in view of Leise (US Patent No. 10,891,694.)
With respect to claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20, the claims depend from claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 recite additional limitation. However, the additional limitations are taught by Leise (Please see the 103 section below.):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 8 and 15 of the copending Application 18/134964, to include the limitations, as taught by Leise , in order to train a machine learning model to perform the claimed functions. (Leise : Abstract, Col. 2 ll. 16-44)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise (US Patent No. 10,891,694,) in view of Floyd (US Patent No. 10,713,727,) further in view of Donnelly (US Patent Application No. 2021/0094820.)
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Leise teach:
receiving, at one or more processors, vehicle sensor data and/or electronic device data generated from sensors mounted on or within (a) a vehicle, and/or (b) an electronic device located within the vehicle; (recorded data received from the vehicle: Col. 14 l. 40-Col. 15 l. 11)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “sensors mounted on or within (a) a vehicle, and/or (b) an electronic device located within the vehicle,” it is sufficient that one of the options a) or b) is taught.
determining a parametric event associated with a vehicle collision or severity thereof from analysis of the vehicle sensor data and/or electronic device data by inputting, by the one or more processors, the vehicle sensor data and/or electronic device data into a trained machine learning model that is trained to identify vehicle collisions, severity of loss, severity of vehicle damage, and/or other vehicle-related events or factors; (analyzing recorded data associated with a vehicle accident (i.e., parametric event): Col. 14 ll. 40-60, using a trained machine learning algorithm: Col. 18 ll. 13-37)
generating, by the one or more processors and for the parametric event, a corresponding smart contract (generating a smart contract: Col. 22 l. 60-Col. 23 l. 8)
that is configured to (i) receive a transaction and/or other data from one or more computing devices, and/or (ii) automatically execute on the blockchain; (transmitting the transaction to the smart contract: Col. 17 ll. Col. 50-56, 18 ll. 55-61)
and/or (ii) automatically execute on the blockchain; (smart contract automatically executed when a trigger condition is satisfied: Col. 6 ll. 6-25)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “the smart contract is configured to (i)…and/or (ii)…” it is sufficient that one of the options (i) or (ii) is taught by the prior art.
The examiner further notes that the claim recitation “smart contract…configured to…” indicates intended use of the smart contract, but the functions “receiving…” and “automatically executing…” are not positively recited. Therefore, the claim limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
deploying, by the one or more processors, the smart contract at a particular address on the blockchain. (smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger (i.e., blockchain): Col. 22 l. 60-Col. 23 l. 8, smart contract has an address: Col. 6 ll. 6-17, Col. 17 l. 65-col. 18 l. 3)
providing… based upon the determining, an alert to a vehicle operator… (present or issue a warning/alert to the human driver: Col. 32 ll. 1-15)
In addition, with respect to claims 8 and 15, Leise teach:
a computer system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that executed by the one or more processors, (Col. 16 l. 65-Col. 17 l. 16, Claims 11 and 15)
Leise do not explicitly teach; however, Floyd teach:
storing, by the one or more processors, the generated smart contract in a database; (Smart contracts are stored in a smart contract database: FIG. 1B, Col. 11 ll. 17-22, Col. 16 ll. 24-45)
querying, by the one or more processors, the database using a vehicle unique identifier to locate the smart contract; (query the databased on the smart contracts using an indication of the vehicle: Col. 16 ll. 29-37, Col. 20 ll. 51-61, the indication of identity of the vehicle: Col. 14 ll. 44-50.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicular event blockchain using smart contracts, as taught by Floyd , into the system of Leise for processing vehicle related events, in order to maintain records of and have access to vehicle events data. (Floyd : Abstract, Col. 1 l. 58-Col. 2 l. 5)
Leise and Floyd do not explicitly teach; however, Donnelly teaches:
providing, via a component graphic user interface and based upon the determining, an alert to a vehicle operator including one or more actions; (the awareness computing system provides an awareness challenge to the driver via an output device of the vehicle by displaying a prompt: [0109], [0118], [0123]-[0124], [0155])
at least one of:
in response to detecting that a timer associated with the determining reaches a time threshold, performing at least one of the one or more actions; (monitor elapsed time of an awareness challenge by initiating a timer: [0046]-[0047], if response interval expires, perform safety routine: FIG. 8, [0137]-[0141])
or
in response to detecting a user interaction with the component graphic user interface before the timer reaches the time threshold, performing at least one of the one or more actions selected via the user interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the awareness system, as taught by Donnelly , into the system of Leise and Floyd for processing vehicle related events, in order to improve vehicle operator’s alertness. (Donnelly : Abstract, [0024])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “at least one of: in response to detecting that a timer associated with the alert reaches a time threshold… or in response to detecting a user interaction with the component graphic user interface…” indicates optional claim features that only one of which is required by the claim. Therefore, for a prior art it is sufficient to teach one of the optional features.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the smart contract is configured to automatically execute on the blockchain… (smart contract automatically executed when a trigger condition is satisfied: Col. 6 ll. 6-25)
…when the transaction and/or vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event (a) associated with the vehicle collision or severity thereof, and/or (b) corresponding to the smart contract has occurred. (vehicle collision: Col. 7 ll. 35-65)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation it is sufficient that one of the options (a) or (b) is taught by the prior art.
The examiner further notes that the claim recitation “smart contract is configured to automatically execute …” indicates intended use of the smart contract, but the function “executing…” is not positively recited. Therefore, the claim limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using historical vehicle collision data. (Col. 30 ll. 21-40)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation indicates non-positively recited function as the function “training” is not positively recited and therefore claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 3, 10 and 17.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the trained machine learning model is trained to identify vehicle-related events or factors, the vehicle-related events or factors including identifying one or more of:
a vehicle collision has occurred;
an amount of vehicle damage;
an estimated severity of the vehicle collision;
an estimated severity of personal injuries;
an estimated cost to repair the vehicle or vehicle parts;
an estimated cost to replace the vehicle or vehicle parts;
that a tow vehicle is needed to tow a damaged vehicle;
that a taxi or ride-share service is needed to transport an operator of the damaged vehicle;
that an ambulance is needed at the scene of the vehicle collision;
parts needed to repair the damaged vehicle; and/or
a nearby repair shop or body shop with the parts and expertise necessary to repair the vehicle. (machine learning algorithm determines a collision happened, determines damages, determines repair cost, etc.: Col. 44 l. 4-Col. 45 l. 22)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation, it is sufficient that one of the factors is taught by the prior art.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 3, 10 and 17.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the trained machine learning model identifies vehicle-related events or factors, the vehicle-related events or factors including identifying one or more of:
a vehicle collision has occurred;
an amount of vehicle damage;
an estimated severity of the vehicle collision;
an estimated severity of personal injuries;
an estimated cost to repair the vehicle or vehicle parts;
an estimated cost to replace the vehicle or vehicle parts;
that a tow vehicle is needed to tow a damaged vehicle;
that a taxi or ride-share service is needed to transport an operator of the damaged vehicle;
that an ambulance is needed at the scene of the vehicle collision;
parts needed to repair the damaged vehicle; and/or
a nearby repair shop or body shop with the parts and expertise necessary to repair the vehicle. (machine learning algorithm determines a collision happened, determines damages, determines repair cost, etc.: Col. 44 l. 4-Col. 45 l. 22)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation, it is sufficient that one of the factors is taught by the prior art.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein training the trained machine learning model includes one or more of:
(i) Bayesian program learning;
(ii) voice recognition and synthesis;
(iii) image and/or object recognition;
(iv) optical character recognition;
(v) natural language processing;
(vi) semantic analysis; and/or
(vii) automatic reasoning. (Col. 43 ll. 45-61)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation, it is sufficient that one of the methods (i) to (vii) is taught by the prior art.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Leise and Floyd and Donnelly teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein generating the smart contract includes generating the smart contract to define an action including any one of:
(i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL);
(ii) communicating with an insurer entity; (filing a legal action: Col. 57 ll. 15-27)
(iii) communicating with an emergency response entity; (Col. 31 ll. 46-53)
(iv) communicating with a towing service entity; (sending tow truck: Col. 57 ll. 15-27)
(v) communicating with a taxi or ride-share service entity;
(vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity; or
(vii) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity.
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “generating the smart contract to define… any one of (i)…(ii)…(iii)…(vi)” it is sufficient that one of the options (i), (ii), (iii)… or (vi) is taught by the prior art.
The examiner further notes that the claim recitation “generating the smart contract to define …” indicates intended use of the smart contract, but the function “defining…” is not positively recited. Therefore, the claim limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saiki (US 2019/0100197,) teaches a system for alerting a driver about collisions, where a driver response is required within a predetermined time period.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights